After running numbers on the Western Athletic Conference the other night, I decided to see how all five non-BCS conferences have fared against teams from the six BCS leagues over the past four seasons.
Again, we're looking each school's record against BCS-league opponents, to see which teams and which leagues have held their own the best against the highest level of competition in college football. I'll start by telling you there are only three non-BCS schools that have totaled more than five wins against BCS teams in the past four seasons -- try to guess who those are, with the hint that only two have winning records. (Answers after the jump in a few paragraphs).
As a whole, non-BCS schools are 77-392 against BCS opponents since 2005, meaning they win just 19.6 percent of the time. One non-BCS league is much more successful than the other four -- the Mountain West Conference is 30-35 since '05, good for a .462 winning percentage. (The ACC's non-conference record against BCS opponents, for comparison's sake, is 49-55; the Big East's is 38-39).
No other league comes close -- the Western Athletic is 13-62 (.173), the Mid-American Conference is 17-120 (.124), Conference USA is 11-91 (.108) and the Sun Belt is 6-84 (.067).
And if you want a more immediate timeframe, consider the last two seasons: the MWC is 19-16 (again, for a close comparison, the Big East is 19-18, the ACC 30-30); the WAC is 7-30, the MAC is 11-60, the Sun Belt is 5-43 -- actually better than C-USA, which is 4-47. We've written about C-USA's struggles with BCS opponents before -- take away East Carolina and the rest of the league is 1-41 against BCS teams in the past two seasons.
So what individual non-BCS teams have piled up the most wins against BCS opponents? The top two are both from the Mountain West -- TCU is 7-2 and Utah is 7-3. The only other non-BCS program with a winning record against BCS teams since '05 is New Mexico at 3-2.
Next best? East Carolina is 6-10, with five wins against ACC teams. Give the Pirates credit, too, because nobody else has scheduled more games against BCS teams (FAU has the same 16 games, but with a 1-15 record.) BYU is 5-7, Fresno State is 4-8, and then there are six teams with three wins against BCS opponents: New Mexico (3-2), Wyoming (3-3), Boise State (3-4), Toledo (3-5), Western Michigan (3-8) and Hawaii (3-10). Everyone else is averaging one BCS win every two seasons ... or worse.
Now the other side: Of those 77 wins for non-BCS teams, which BCS league has lost the most? The Pac-10 has lost 20, then the Big 12 (16), ACC (13), Big Ten (11), SEC (8) and Big East (8).
There are 23 BCS schools that haven't lost a non-BCS game in the past four seasons (including USF). Which school has lost the most? Arizona, UCLA, Iowa State and N.C. State have lost four each, and Stanford, Washington, Virginia and Mississippi State have each lost three.
One last note: Which non-BCS teams are the weakest in terms of scheduling the fewest games against BCS teams? Five schools have played four or fewer games -- a dubious honor for UTEP (0-3), UNLV (2-2), New Mexico State (0-4), Utah State (0-4) and Tulsa (0-4).
OK, enough for now. What else is a college writer to blog about in July?
Times sportswriter Greg Auman, who covers USF, will post news and thoughts on the Bulletin and we invite your participation in the comments area.
If Jim was being sarcastic, I just missed it and didn't read it that way. I always feel like sarcasm is easy to miss in print -- you never get the inflection, etc. ... no offense taken either way.
Posted by: G.A. | July 07, 2009 at 12:13 AM
I thought Jim was sarcastic, meaning that those topics weren't interesting.
Posted by: Windbane | July 07, 2009 at 12:07 AM
fantastic post.
Posted by: Ryan | July 06, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Jim has a perfect last name for his attitude.
Posted by: Commish Chalko | July 06, 2009 at 05:35 PM
The reason the Pac-10 is the worst is because they play the toughest non AQ conference, the Mountain West, more than the other conferences due to geographical proximity. And they play on the road at those schools at well.
Posted by: Neil | July 06, 2009 at 05:04 PM
Thanks for the info GA...
And to all those who want to pick on the Big East, they should read this article...I will be posting this link every time I see their ignorant comments :)
Just because one or two teams might dominate a conference does not make them a better conference!
As for a play off...
The only way we will see this, is if Congress is successful in proving that the BCS is violating Anti-Trust laws (which I believe they are)...
Funny, if the BCS goes defunct...I hope they will be mandated to pay back all the schools who joined it ... I know we had to pay quite a bit of money to both enter the Big East and to leave C-USA...
But, even more interesting is that all teams must join a conference for a playoff system to work. What will Notre Shame do? lol
Posted by: Bulliever | July 06, 2009 at 03:34 PM
ya his shoulder has been botherin him but he should be seein some time this week, not of any real importance but just thought i'd mention that george brett and reggie jackson also played for that team
Posted by: jarred | July 06, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Richard, Notre Dame accounts for the missing loss. Just forgot to mention them. And it would be more telling to do percentages, but that'd require me to do a second lap through all 53 schools, and I wasn't up for it last night ...
Posted by: G.A. | July 06, 2009 at 10:23 AM
You lost a win in the "76" wins for non-BCS schools against BCS leagues. Just wondering out loud - I see the PAC-10 has the most losses - 20 but would it be a better stat to show what that percenage is rather then just the gross number. I mean if the PAC-10 played a thousand non-BCS teams it wouldn't be to bad. Just a thought.
Posted by: Richard Todd | July 06, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Jarred, I've left a bunch of messages with Manz and he's not calling me back. He's been assigned to the Billings Mustangs, but hasn't played yet ...
Posted by: G.A. | July 06, 2009 at 09:01 AM
Playoffs and paying athletes? Those count as new and interesting? What possible new angle could I bring to two tired, overchewed morsels of football "news"?
We're not going to see college athletes getting paid. At some point, we'll see a playoff, but I don't think there's anything to report in mid-July. Wish I could tell you there's progress to report there, but just more people saying they're for or against it really doesn't count.
As far as letting a player transfer without penalty if a coach is fired or quits, I think the NCAA feels like there's too much transferring as it is. Schools let kids out of letters very easily these days, but once someone's on campus, there's not a lot of leeway with transferring. Make an exception for a head coach leaving, soon they'll want one for an assistant leaving, and so on.
It's a nice idea, and more viable in basketball where smaller rosters have coaches playing a larger role in college decisions, but I don't know that any legislation is forthcoming to loosen transfer rules.
Posted by: G.A. | July 06, 2009 at 08:58 AM
Hey Jim, maybe you should start your own blog! Maybe, if you wanted Greg to do something on a particular subject, you could try asking in a civil manner! Greg is usually pretty accomodating when asked by his readers for related info and stories. Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Steve O'Neal | July 06, 2009 at 08:58 AM
"What else is a college writer to blog about in July?"
Playoffs? Paying athletes? Letting athletes transfer without penalty if the coach quits or is fired?
Oh, wait... you might have mean "What else [NEW AND INTERESTING] is a college writer to blog about in July?"
Posted by: Jim Johnson | July 06, 2009 at 08:20 AM
Great article Greg... You made a very slow night in Arizona worth staying up for another 15 minutes.
Posted by: Terry Lucas | July 06, 2009 at 03:21 AM
a piece on manz gettin some playin time hopefully this week would be cool
Posted by: jarred | July 06, 2009 at 01:35 AM